The relevence of Biblical claims to science

Not yet, I would guess that lots of ppl want to discuss it.

I had to read this about 3 times to get a meaning out. Do you mean:Are you being a bit narrow in accepting answers developed from a spiritual perspective to only those questions as a demonstration of the value of this approach?I don't think that Q was restricting the discussion to those questions. They are just representative examples of the kind of thing that he thinks should be discussed.You have been asked for you own examples a number of times. If you'd like to supply them that would be interesting.

Well any examples would be useful and I suppose it isn't necessary to answer those specific questions. Could you comment on whether you think they are good examples of the general type of questions that could be included?

quote:

---

Babies have very little vitamin K in their bodies at birth. Vitamin K does not cross the placenta to the developing baby, and the gut does not have any bacteria to make vitamin K before birth.

---

from: http://www.betterhealthchannel.com.au/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal. - Adminnemooseus}It seems that we do know why vitamin K builds up after birth. It builds up in both males and females. I can't find anything that suggests any kind of "spike".It seems that you've managed to demonstrate not that the supernatural is a useful tool in learning about such things. Rather the contrary: you've demonstrated that the blindness of faith can lead you to believe things that are not true and to stop trying to learn more.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-22-2004 12:01 PM

What you have done, unwittingly, is use the method of reductio ad absurdum. Using that method you want to prove A, you then start by assuming notA and show that this leads to an absurd conclusion.You started by assuming that the Bible is correct. You have then shown that this leads to wrong answers about the real world. You have shown that assuming the Bible is correct leads to an absurd conclusion. So we conclude you have proved that the Bible is NOT correct. Congratualations. You seem to say that if you assume the Bible is correct and then say anything it says proves it is correct. This whole thing is utterly laughable. It is astonishing that you would put such a thing forward with a straight face.I thought you had an interesting to discuss. It is clear that his is nonsense. LOL, you may think they are challenging but they have to be right to do that. So far you haven't accomplished a damm thing.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-22-2004 01:35 PM

We asked you for the knowledge. I suspect that your prayer would work better than mine. I suggest you pray cause so far anything else you've tried has bombed. You were asked for examples of how your methods were better. You gave one. You are wrong about it.Perhaps instead of looking up careless and dishonest material on creationist sites you would do better to pray. We'll wait for the results.

Fine, good, ok, why on earth did we bother with this thread then?It is totally silly if that is all you're trying to say. We know it answers some of the same questions. Sheesh how silly.However, you've moved a bit. I do seem to recall that you were somehow convinced that it was better or at least could add to what we learn from science about the natural world. Are you now saying that you never claimed such a thing???This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-22-2004 01:51 PM

Maestro is only, I will give him the benefit of the doubt, going step by step in very small steps. He isn't asking us to agree to the proposition just the statment that IF the bible is true then it has some relevance to questions of scientific interest.In my opinion, he muddled that badly. Of course it is relevant if it says something that is true.So there are 4 cases:
The Bible and science agree.
The Bible and science disagree.
The Bible has something to say on the topic, science doesn't.
Science has something to say, the Bible doesn't.Only the second case seems to be interesting. Right?

If all you were trying to extablish was that IF the Bible is true it is relevant why didn't you correct us earlier? Why did you respond with the Vitamin K example? It appeared you were trying to show it was correct. That isn't necessary, as has been shown, to demonstrate your proposition. Some of us, at least, have agreed that if the Bible is correct then it is relevant. Seems so obvious that It is odd that we spent so long getting there.Why, btw, are you now ignoring questions about the Vitamin K example? You don't actually think we will just forget it if you don't reply do you?

Now we are back to where I think Percy thought we were supposed to be going.
You suggest that there is another methodology of some sort. How about describing it in general and then giveing a few examples.(btw regarding the Vit K --- it is rather clear that the behavior is the same between males and females -- that in itself, without any other details invalidates your idea. )This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-22-2004 03:09 PM

As I read what Maestro is trying to say, he isn't saying that his methodology has to stand the test of science. He seems to suggest he has a completely different way of determinting "truth" about the natural world.We wait for him to describe this and show how it is better.We've asked for this before. We have never seen anything useful.

But this isn't want you said you wanted to do. The above is using the methodology of science to show something about the natural world.I guess I'm not clever enough. I simply can't think of another approach that might give better answers than the scientific approach does.So far all I see of your suggested method is:
1) Read the bible
2) Assume true
3) Stop there, do NOT check what you've been told.As soon as you DO check with the real world you start to move closer to the scientific methodology. If you don't how the heck do you know you are half way right.When we DO check of course we find that the Bible is right in some places (but not, it seems, very many) and wrong (very wrong) in a bunch of places.